Chavez Melchor v. 228 Bleecker LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:18-cv-10527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chavez Melchor v. 228 Bleecker LLC, Judge Parker approved the settlement and discontinued the wage case with prejudice and without costs.
The settlement affected Jorge Chavez Melchor, the similarly situated plaintiffs he represented, the defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel. The case was closed after the court approved the settlement.
What happened
Chavez Melchor v. 228 Bleecker LLC was an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law brought by Jorge Chavez Melchor individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and submitted the proposed settlement for court approval.
The court reviewed the settlement, the parties’ explanation of its fairness, the agreement’s terms, and the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions. It found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiffs’ claims and compensate their lawyers.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The plaintiffs could ask to restore the case to the active calendar within 30 days if the written settlement documentation was not completed, and the clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Chavez Melchor v. 228 Bleecker LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10527
- Katharine Parker
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
Jorge Chavez Melchor brought this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement Review
Because the action included Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court reviewed the proposed settlement for fairness, as required by the precedent cited in the order. The parties submitted a letter explaining why they believed the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court considered that letter, the agreement’s terms, and its own familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions developed during telephone conferences intended to assist settlement.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker found that the settlement terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate both to redress the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the settlement. It also retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary.
As a result of approving the settlement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The order provided that, within 30 days, the plaintiffs could apply by letter to restore the action to the active calendar if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.